1. Field of Invention
This invention is a traffic collision cover which restricts the view of physical damage to one or more vehicles involved in a traffic accident to passing motorists and pedestrians.
2. Prior Art
The use of a safety device used to block or restrict the viewing of an accident scene to passing motorists and pedestrians is known in the prior art. Many of these inventions are designed to increase traffic flow in the vicinity of a traffic accident. As the number of vehicles increase on our highways, freeways, and roads, every effort should be looked at to minimize traffic congestion and commute time. This is especially true in major metropolitan areas where traffic has already saturated the anticipated capacity of these roadways. When an accident occurs on a freeway or highway, traffic is typically impacted in both directions.
While no invention can erase the commotion of emergency vehicles at the scene and the related slowdown, by blocking the view of the actual vehicles involved in the accident, the amount of time motorists spend rubbernecking the accident scene is anticipated to be reduced. This allows more traffic to flow by an accident scene.
There are a number of inventions designed to restrict the view of passing motorists and pedestrians in the prior art.
For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,036,249 to Kuntz (2000) allows emergency vehicles to have an accident shield device installed in their trunk. Upon arriving at an accident scene, emergency personnel deploy the accident shield by unfolding panels. The expanded panels are secured by being connected to the emergency vehicle and by adjustable feet at the bottom of the panels. The end result is a visual barrier between the passing motorists and accident scene. Several disadvantages to this approach are the accident shield device is large, takes up a lot of space, and adds significant weight to the emergency vehicle. As the emergency vehicle is attached to the accident shield, the accident shield would need to be taken down before the emergency vehicle could move. The accident shield has a large surface area which may need to be secured in adverse weather conditions.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,553,648 to Goharjou (1996) allows emergency personnel to set up a portable wall at an accident scene. The portable wall consists of a flexible sheet, collapsible vertical posts, and base components. The base components are used to support the vertical posts. The vertical posts are used to support the flexible sheet. At the upper end of each vertical post is a ring used to attach stabilizing cords. The other end of each cord is tied to hooks which are physically screwed into the ground on each side of the vertical posts. Several disadvantages to this approach are the portable wall is large, takes up a lot of space, and adds weight to the emergency vehicle. Hooks need to be physically attached into the ground in order to support this device in the upright position. But if the accident occurs on a multilane freeway built of solid concrete where you cannot easily penetrate the ground, there may be no way to use this invention as described.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,269,623 to Hanson (1993) obstructs oncoming motorists' view of an accident scene by using an inflatable screen. The main conduit has outwardly projected leg members for supporting the screen and upwardly projecting stanchions spaced apart. Pressurized gas is used to rapidly deploy the shield into its operative position. Ground engaging or retention devices are used to hold the shield in place at the accident site. Several disadvantages to this approach are the device is large, takes up a lot of space, and adds weight to the emergency vehicles. The inflatable screen provides a large surface area when deployed. As such, it must be firmly secured to ensure it does not move into the path of passing motorists under adverse weather conditions, such as a gust of wind. But if the accident occurs on a multilane freeway built of solid concrete, it may not be easy to secure this invention as described.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,186,912 to Byrd, Jr. (1980) creates a visual barrier using an elongated screen of light-reflective material supported at each end by folding posts. The two end posts are secured using mounting cables to any conveniently fixed objects, such as a tree, telephone pole, building, or another motor vehicle. Several disadvantages to this approach are the device is large, takes up a lot of space, and adds weight to the emergency vehicle. To support the end posts, “fixed objects” first need to exist at the accident scene (which may not be the case) and second need to be spaced apart from each other as determined by the length of the screen. In the most likely scenario, this ties up one or two emergency vehicles, forces their location at the accident scene in potentially awkward configurations, and the screen must be taken down if an emergency vehicle needs to move.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,124,196 to Hipskind (1978) describes a portable device for screening off an accident scene from view using a non-transparent, elongated sheet of thin flexible material which is deployed from a portable cylindrical container, similar to a retractable curtain rod. This device is attached to the bumper of an emergency vehicle. Tripod based poles are used to support the elongated sheet in an upright position. Several disadvantages to this approach are the device is large, takes up a lot of space, and adds significant weight to the emergency vehicle. As the emergency vehicle is attached to the accident shield device, the accident shield device would need to first be taken down before the emergency vehicle could move. Also, this device has a large surface area which must be secured in adverse weather conditions. The tripods would most likely require heavy weights to prevent them from tipping in high winds.
Japan Pat. No. JP11209936 to Nobuhiro (1999) describes an accident spot shielding device consisting of a shielding curtain with support posts at each end. The shielding curtain is held upright by inserting the bottom of each post into a hole placed in cylindrical supports. The shield spreads out and folds up similar to the bellows of an accordion. Several disadvantages to this approach are the device is large, takes up a lot of space, and adds significant weight to the emergency vehicle. To effectively prevent sightseeing congestion using this device, multiple screens would need to be set up at the accident scene. The screens are supported by heavy supports. Even with the heavy supports, adverse weather conditions would make this device susceptible to being blown over by a high gust of wind and potentially into traffic causing even more congestion.
In performing web searches, the term “Traffic Collision Cover” was found to match text on the Emergency Response Services Web Site based in Hereford, United Kingdom, at http://www.ers999.com/support.html. This web page uses the term “Road Traffic Collision Rescue Cover” but with no further explanation. In contacting them, this is a service and is not a product. The reference is used to indicate that their company provides road traffic collision coverage (i.e., ambulances and medics) in foreign countries, such as Iraq. Although the title of this invention matches text on their web page, there is no prior art to compare with.
As stated above, there are many disadvantages of the prior art. These disadvantages can be summarized as:                1. All prior art above is large, takes up a lot of space, and can add significant weight to an emergency vehicle in order to provide a temporary wall barrier at an accident scene. To be effective, the temporary wall barrier needs to be approximately five feet high and long enough to screen off a large area. In U.S. Pat. No. 4,186,912 to Byrd, Jr. (1980), the length of the screen was stated as “thirty-six feet long or larger”. But emergency vehicles may not have a large amount of extra space to support the prior art. Adding additional weight may also impact the acceleration and response times of existing emergency vehicles.        2. All prior art above creates a temporary wall barrier between the passing motorists and vehicles involved in an accident. None of these inventions physically attach itself to the vehicles involved in the accident.        3. Some prior art above, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,036,249 to Kuntz (2000) and U.S. Pat. No. 4,124,196 to Hipskind (1978), use an emergency vehicle to support the barrier when it is set up. The main disadvantage of this approach is if the emergency vehicle needs to move, emergency personnel may need to take down the barrier first or move the vehicle carefully with the attached barrier still extended.        4. All prior art above must be set up and taken down. Due to the size and number of components of the prior art, this may be a non-trivial, time consuming task for most, if not all, of the above inventions.        5. All prior art above need to address how to prevent movement of the invention once it has been set up. For example, inventions need to address adverse weather conditions, such as high winds. In order to restrict the ability of passing motorists from viewing the accident scene, many prior inventions create a large surface area to block the motorists' view. To minimize movement due to wind, some screens use a mesh fabric or have cut flaps in the fabric to allow the wind to pass through. However if a high gust of wind were to hit such a large surface area, the invention itself may act as a sail and may be moved into the path of the passing motorists potentially causing an unintentional accident. To counter this undesired movement, some prior inventions use additional weight to better secure their invention. But adding additional weight to emergency vehicles is not an advantage. Other inventions are required to be tied to objects (e.g., hooks) physically attached to the ground in order for them to maintain an upright position. But if the accident occurs on a multilane freeway built of solid concrete where you cannot easily penetrate the ground, there may be no way to use the invention as described since the posts cannot be supported in the upright position.        